Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00237)

Jerry S. writes:

>Jerry H-E:
>I have read your recent post, and I have heard you say that CWL
>is in conflict with HPB either deliberately or in ignorance
>several times in the past.  I agree that there seem to be at
>least some conflicts, but not as many as you suggest.
>     As I understand it, the CWL model talks about bodies
>and planes, which basically are made of the same "stuff" which
>is to say, out of the tattvas or cosmic elements.

JHE
      Yes. My understanding too.  And according to CWL, these
"bodies" and "planes" are made of increasingly finer atomic
material.  By analogy, if the astral plane were made up of
marbles, then the mental plane would be made up of sand. The next
higher plane is made of even finer material.  Jinarajadasa uses
an analogy of this sort in his ~First Principles of Theosophy.~

JS
>HPB, on the other hand talks about planes and principles, and
>only mentions bodies once that I know of, where she specifically
>mentions three subtle bodies.  Other than semantical
>word-smiths, where is there any conflict?  I find myself
>agreeing with both CWL and HPB here, and have never been able to
>grasp what you are talking about.   I have always viewed
>"bodies" as objective vehicles of consciousness, and
>"principles" as subjective states of consciousness.  So, I tend
>to see them as going together rather than conflicting.

JHE
      The way you are using terms may be part of the confusion,
but I suspect that it runs much deeper.  It is not a matter of
"word-smiths."  I believe the confusion created by combining HPB
and CWL is very real and is not resolvable through the appealing
to semantics.  IMO the confusion concerns an attempt to make two
incompatible systems of thought work together as an integrated
set of concepts.  So, let's start by taking the terms you
mentioned above and compare them in the two systems:
      BODIES: Your definition of "bodies" as "objective vehicles
of consciousness" is fine for CWL's purposes, but HPB means much
more than that.  For HPB, bodies are independent entities that
come into existance either at the death of the physical body, or
through an extraordinary act of will.  That is why HPB never uses
terms like "buddhic body," or "atmic body."  "Mental body" would
also be an incorrect equivalent of "manas," because the they do
not have independent existences as entities.  Further, HPB's
bodies each have their own cycle of existance.  They never exist
beyond a single cycle of incarnation and disincarnation (with the
exception of the Causal Body, which exists for a manvantara).
      PRINCIPLE: I'm not sure what CWL means by "principle."  It
may be just as you say, a "subjective state of consciousness."
For HPB, a principle is not a state of consciousness, but is an
expression of one of the seven basic differentiations of the
Elements or original essences which make up all things.
Therefore every entity, existing on the physical or any other
plane, global, solar or cosmic are made up of principles.  HPB's
seven principles are the seven aspects of the One Universal
Reality, whether the term is applied to the Kosmos or to the
human constitution.  This is why I think CWL's bodies is sort of
a misconstrued take-off on HPB's principles, but I don't know if
this was CWL's intention.  As you say, CWL's bodies are formed
from the Tattwas of the Indian system (which HPB warns is full of
blinds), or from the Greek system of Elements.  As you say, there
is an identity between CWL's tattwas and his bodies.  HPB's
principles are not identities, but rather *aspects* of the
elements.  They are not the elements themselves, though there are
correspondences between the elements (tattwas) and the
principles.  Therefore, I find two striking differences between
HPB's principles and CWL's bodies.  The first is that the CWL's
bodies are found on the seven solar planes while HPB's are on the
seven sub-planes of the solar physical plane.  The second
difference is that CWL's bodies are formed from the Elements,
while HPB's are *aspects* of the Elements.
      VEHICLE: Though you use the word "vehicle," you have left it
undefined.  For "vehicle" HPB also uses the word "Upadhi" as a
synonym.  A vehicle or upadhi is that through which a force acts.
A vehicle is not necessarily a principle, but works within a
principle.  That is why HPB says that the physical body is not
really a principle.  Rather, it is a vehicle (upadhi) though
which consciousness acts.  Therefore, a principle is really the
vehicle of the principle next superior to it.  For instance,
Buddhi is the vehicle of Atma; Manas is the vehicle of Buddhi
etc.
      To address the issue you raised concerning the difference
between bodies and principles; they are two very different things
to HPB.  Whether they are different to CWL is not clear to me.
But it is clear that what HPB calls bodies, are entirely
different from what CWL calls bodies, with the possible
exceptions of "physical body" and "Causal body."   I'm sure that
CWL and HPB agree on what they mean by "physical body,"  but I'm
less sure of the extent of agreement concerning "causal body."
For HPB, the Causal body is really synomous with the human monad.
To call a "monad" a "body" is something that I have never seen
HPB do.  The causal body, according to HPB, is a combination of
Atma, Buddhi and manas, and normally does not come into existence
until after the death of the physical body.  As I mentioned, she
also calls it "the human monad."  So how CWL construes this to be
a "body" that comes from the tattwas is a mystery to me.  Which
tattwa makes up the Causal body in CWL's system?  Do you know?
Considering the above, I'm forced to come to the conclusion
that when HPB discusses "bodies," she is not discussing what CWL
means by the term: i.e. they are not tattwas, and they do not
make up the seven-fold human constitution.  Further, HPB's bodies
are a combination of two or more principles that make up the
human constitution.  HPB has five such "bodies" if you include
the physical, and calls them by various names:

1. rupa: Also called the "physical body," "sthula sarira", and
"body."  This is not a principle, according to HPB.  Here, I
think both HPB and CWL would agree that the physical body is
formed from the elements on the physical plane.

2. protean double: Also called the vital double.  This body has
an independent existence when projected by a medium.  It is also,
according to HPB, sometimes seen near fresh graves.  This sounds
something like CWL's "etheric body," in that it is molecular. But
I think CWL had something else in mind.

3. Kama rupa: This body forms only after the death of the
physical body, and is the vehicle for one's experiences in kama
loka.  It is formed from the combination of kama and manas after
the death of the physical body.  CWL uses the term "astral Body"
in this position of the schema.  His astral body is the seat of
the emotions, and sometimes he calls it the "emotional body."
For HPB, the principle she uses in this position is "kama" (it is
different from kama rupa) which has to do with desires, not
emotions.  Emotions in HPB's scheme are seated in the linga
sarira.

4. Mayavi rupa: Also called an "ilusionary body." This body is
used for astral projection.  According to HPB, certain adepts are
able to project this body and materialize it in another location.
It is formed from kamic substance and shaped by focused thought.
I don't think CWL has anything like this in his schema of bodies,
unless this is also his astral body.

5. Causal body: Also called the "karmic body."  This is the body
that experiences devachan between incarnations.  CWL also has a
causal body that also experiences devachan.  The difference is
that HPB's causal body does not exist until after the death of
the physical body.  CWL's causal body exists during the lifetime
of the person as well as afterwards.
      The important thing I want to get across here is that HPB's
bodies are not the principles, nor do they make up the human
constitution.  These bodies do not have an existence until they
are formed via a trance state in the case of the protean double,
or through astral projection in the case of the Mayavi rupa, or
they come into being after the death of the physical body in the
case of the kama rupa, and the causal body, as well as the two
aformentioned (protean double and mayavi rupa).  The physical
body is also not a principle, as I explained above.  CWL's
"bodies" on the other hand, seem to be structures that make up
the human constitution.

JHE
> Actually my criticism concerns CWL's enumeration of the
>solar planes as described in ~Man Visible and Invisible,~  and
>his confounding them with the "seven bodies of man,"  which is
>further confounded with HPB's "seven principles of man."

JS
      Here is exactly my problem--I just don't see the
"confounding" that you seem to see.  To me CWL says that
we have a physical body on the physical plane, an astral body
on the astral plane, and so on.  I don't see this as confounding
anything.  Nor does it conflict with HPB in any way that I have
ever found.

JHE
      Hopefully what I have written above will clarify this.  Yes
I also understand that CWL says "we have a physical body on the
physical plane, an astral body on the astral plane" etc.  But
which physical plane?  The physical plane of the planet?  The
physical plane of the Solar system?  The physical plane of the
Cosmic planes?  They are not all the same in HPB's schema.  A
planet or star that is visible to us is on our physical plane,
but that chain may have globes that are subphysical and not
visible to us.  This may seem picky, but the blurring together of
these planes in CWL's system has caused a lot of problems.  In
the human constitution on the solar planes.  See diagram II.

JHE
>  HPB, on the other hand, does not confound the solar
>planes and the principles, because the principles in her system
>do not occupy any but the lowest solar plane.

JS
>     Here I disagree with your interpretation.  I believe that
>she teaches that the seven cosmic planes each have seven
>principles, that the seven principles of the physical plane (the
>lowest) are a reflection of "wheels-within-wheels" wherein the
>seven cosmic principles are each expressed on each cosmic plane.
>Just like each plane has seven suplanes, so each has seven
>principles.  You seem to be implying that there are no
>principles expressed on any of the other cosmic planes.
>
>Am I missing something?
>
>     Jerry S.
>     Member, TI

      Yes, I agree that the seven cosmic planes have seven
principles, and the cosmic subplanes also have principles.  Just
by the definition I offered above, it cannot be any other way.
Every plane and subplane has its principles, but the principles
belonging to the human constitution are on the subplanes of the
solar physical plane.  I also agree that the principles of the
physical plane are a "reflection" of the other planes.  "wheels
within wheels" as you say.  But your qualifying term "reflection"
is an important one.  There are correspondences between planes,
but they are not necessarily identities.
      You ask if you are missing something.  It is hard for me to
know what you are missing, because I'm not familiar with all of
the assumptions that you operate from (we all operate from
assumptions).  I'm guessing that what you might be missing is
that principles (as I defined them above) are found on all
planes.  But the human principles are only on the subplanes of
the solar physical.  If they were on all of the solar planes, we
would have the consciousness of the solar system.  With CWL's
system, he was able to have a conversation with the Solar Logos.
In HPB's system, such an accomplishment is even beyond the Dhyani
Chohans' abilities.  Of course, just because the human principles
are not on the solar planes does not mean that there are no
correspondences between them.  For instance our manasic principle
corresponds to Mahat, the divine ideation of our solar system.
But manas is not Mahat.  I hope this helps.

JHE
------------------------------------------
   |Jerry Hejka-Ekins,                      |
      |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT                |
         |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu   |
            |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org       |
               ------------------------------------------